Real plesiosaur?

[heZZ]

Fossil skull of an extinct Sea Monster. What can you say about this piece? Is there any restoration in this piece? Where?

 

-Zarafasaura Oceanis

 

-Morocco

 

-20×40×60 cm

[A.C.]

The teeth definitely look like they were glued together. You will see various cracks on them (not necessarily a bad thing, but there was some restoration for sure on them) I can’t talk definitively on the bones though. My initial guess would be that there was work done to position them and create the association, but as for if the bones are real and truly an associated specimen I can not speak.

[sixgill pete]

I am not an expert on this by any means, but it does not look right to me. My first thought and gut instinct says run away from this one.

[TyrannosaurusRex]

Texture reads as plaster to me, not bone. Especially here. Could be that it’s miscellaneous bone fragments that have been frankensteined together with plaster. Would definitely avoid this. 

[Anomotodon]

I think a large part of this specimen is authentic and indeed represent a plesiosaur skull. First, the anatomy seems generally accurate. Also, dentary (lower jaw) bone has noticeable replacement teeth in the right places. However, I think that a lot of the teeth were probably placed in the jaws (the teeth themselves are real though and all belong to Zarafasaura) and there definitely could some minor areas of restoration, although I can't identify them specifically. Either way, even if there is more restoration than I think - it is by multiple orders of magnitude better than most other supposedly articulated Moroccan material you could find online. 

 

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon what do you think?

 

Tips of replacement teeth

[Phos_01]

I would avoid. Have seen this skull also. If you think about it, its impossible to find a skull like this with all their teeth fitted perfectly together. Definitely put in there afterwards.

This creates the question ,what else have they done. You see this allot recently with these Moroccan skulls, they almost create the whole skull , but still keep it in the matrix. 

 

I really don't like these fabrications, originality is worth allot more for a collector in my opinion. 

[Troodon]

This is the reconstructed skull of Zarafasaura oceani you can compare against.  Looks a bit different.

A new specimen of the elasmosaurid plesiosaur Zarafasaura oceanis from the
Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Morocco. 2013

[glu]

Teeth are surely added, matrix is also fake, and there are lots of miscellaneous bones that has been added.

Anyway a remarkable speciment, there are surely some real Plesiosaurus real bones there, wich are not common

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I've seen this skull come by a couple of times now, on a well-known auction site, but it's unfortunately out of my price range. As such, I haven't ever really taken a closer look at it. But a couple of things to note about this specimen and pieces like this in general are:

• Elasmosaur skull remains are rare - as I understand due to the incomplete ossification of their skull bones - and only a few specimens (including jaws) are found each year.
• Teeth are almost always absent from the jaws and are thus replaced, as they have been here (with the possible exception of a sparing few).
• Many of the teeth here have been repaired and glued back together.
• The piece is not a natural composition as the matrix is way too smooth. This raises concerns about authenticity of the rest of the piece, as more care needs to be taken reviewing which parts belong together.
• The rooted tooth seems to be authentic

Subjecting the mandible to closer inspection, the front part of the jaw seems to be authentic (if one doesn't could the refitted teeth). As Tim correctly pointed out, you can see the alveoli through which the replacement teeth are coming through, with one actually still being visible. However, when you look at the back of the mandible, the region of the jaw hinge - that is, the angular, surangular and articular - seems wrong on both sides, with the right-hand side simply looking to be in poor and incomplete condition, but the left having been replaced by a foreign piece of bone that neither matches the rest of the mandible in either thickness or texture. And, whereas on the right, the angular may simply be missing - the posterior-most part of the jaw simply lacking (the photographs are, unfortunately, not clear enough to make out all the necessary details) - the left-hand side has both the wrong shape and an articular placed way too anteriorly. It wouldn't be surprising for the jaw to have been found with its back part either missing or disarticulated, however, since there's an articulation between the front and back halves of the mandible. To get a better impression of what to look out for, I've attached some photographs from how a Zarafasaura oceanis mandible is supposed to look.

 

 

 

Next taking a look at the teeth of both mandible and cranium, it should be observed that the respective tooth rows normally follow a pattern of larger and smaller teeth that follow the contours of the bones as well as are sized to interlock with one another. Such an arrangement is not present here, indicating the jaw was restored without any attention being paid to this aspect of plesiosaur anatomy.

 

Cranium of Muraenosaurus leedsi (fig 4. from Noè, Taylor and Gómez-Pérez, 2017)

 

 

 

Finally, the cranium overall appears to narrow for Z. oceanis, and the parietal appearing too narrow and with too much of a sharp edge dorsally. It also doesn't appear to connect smoothly with either the post-orbital or squamosal regions. This may be due to compression, though as @TyrannosaurusRex already pointed out, there is some evidence of remodelling of the skull - which is not entirely surprising, but still should be noted (most reconstructed mosasaur skulls also have certain degrees of remodelling - skulls are hardly ever found perfectly preserved). Below is another Z. oceanis skull, which cranium seems better preserved/reconstructed.

 

 

 

In conclusion I'd say this skull is certainly partially authentic, in as much as you may expect any Moroccan skull to be authentic (as said, most mosasaur skulls are also not entirely made out of actual bone, with large parts missing and therefore reconstructed). However, the reconstruction does not seem to have been carried out with a lot of care, which goes for the refitting of the teeth as well, and the left back part of the mandible appears to be a blatant addition. Not a bad display piece, but not scientifically accurate either.

[RuMert]

The overall look is too good in the 1st place. Looks like body parts on display in a butcher's shop, not the way an actual fossil would look like. Intended for rich customers with a vague idea of fossils

[Pemphix]

On 2/3/2022 at 6:21 PM, RuMert said:

 Intended for rich customers with a vague idea of fossils